I am no George W. enthusiast, and given the legitimate conservative third-party
alternatives available, I may not even be able to bring myself to vote
for him in November. Nor will enough other people, my instincts are beginning
to tell me, to bring him to victory over Al Gore. But all is not lost
yet, and I readily admit that I hope Bush - quintessential Republican
"lesser evil" that he is - gets his act together before we have
a Gore administration.

First, Bush must lose the smirk. He can be charming and appear like just
an ordinary guy, very appealing qualities in a candidate facing off against
a vice president Christopher Buckley quips "speaks to the American
people as if English were their second language." But he must behave
as if he is a bit older than Elian Gonzales, which means no more churlish
jokes about female pickaxe murderers begging him for their lives and no
more prepubescent swaggering - such as taunting reporters to ask him who
the president of India is, especially when he hasn't the faintest idea
who is president and who is prime minister.

Second, the Texas governor must confront Gore's infantile "risky
tax scheme" rhetoric head-on. Bush must repeatedly point out that
the federal government is no smaller than when Bill Clinton took office.
Gore not only opposes scaling back any current major function undertaken
by Washington - which is clearly illustrated by his criticism of the Bush
tax-cut plan - but calls for sizeable new spending initiatives in the
areas of health care, education and the environment. Taken together with
his plans for Social Security and debt retirement, these numbers simply
do not add up.

Again, federal domestic spending is no less than when Clinton became
president. The surplus thus is not the result of any significant federal
belt-tightening, but primarily because of sustained economic growth swelling
tax revenues. This growth in large part is fueled by the lower cost of
capital. Tax reduction proposals such as Bush's would, rather than "blowing
a hole in the surplus," lower the cost of capital and preserve the
economic conditions which made the surplus possible. Gore, on the other
hand, would increase spending in ways that mathematically would require
the surplus to become smaller and eventually inch up the tax burden.

Bush must not merely assume this as a defensive posture; he must take
the offensive against Gore's pretensions of fiscal responsibility. The
vice-president must be aggressively portrayed as the candidate whose policies
truly would spend the surplus and then kill the goose that laid the golden
egg of economic growth.

When Gore inevitably counters that he and Clinton are responsible for
the longest economic expansion in history, Bush must emphatically point
out that this concedes that the expansion began when his father was president
- when Clinton and Gore were both claiming America was in the midst of
recession. Otherwise, Clinton and Gore cannot claim a longer period of
growth than the Reagan expansion - an opportunity for Gov. Bush to note
that the economy has grown 97 percent of the time since Ronald Reagan
implemented his marginal tax-rate reductions.

Third, Bush must propose to cut direct federal subsidies to big business.
This will accomplish several objectives. Most importantly, it deals directly
with the one category of spending it is politically possible for Gore
to propose cutting in response to a challenge of his budgetary discipline.
It also has the attractive features of wrapping Bush in the McCain reform
mantra, which has wide appeal to swing voters without abandoning conservative
principles, and defusing his image as the nominee of corporate America.
The Cato Institute counts some $85 billion per year in corporate welfare
to be placed on the chopping block.

Fourth, Bush must remain true to his commitment to a strong national
defense. Defense is another category of spending Gore may propose cutting
if desperate, yet is the one area where we can ill afford to do so. The
number of military units capable of accomplishing their missions has declined
since the end of the Cold War and is at record lows in some service branches.
The U.S. Army's deployment capability is down 44 percent since the Persian
Gulf War and Navy support ships have been cut some 61 percent. Defense
spending now accounts for the smallest share of GDP since the Japanese
bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Fifth, Bush must name a pro-life running mate. The only pro-choice Republican
who can produce a net gain in voters for the ticket is the immensely popular
Colin Powell, who will surely say no. All other pro-choice possibilities
will serve merely to drive millions of pro-life voters away from the GOP
ticket. Evangelical Christians, traditional family values advocates and
pro-life voters are the most committed segment of the GOP electorate;
a pro-choice running mate would prompt many of them to support Pat Buchanan.
Moreover, given Bush's profession of pro-life convictions, most pro-abortion
voters would still favor Gore. You can't have it both ways.

Which brings us to the final point: Bush must avoid the typically inept
Republican pandering to groups that will never vote for him in the first
place and which only serves to alienate and demoralize the base. One of
course does not wish to reinforce all the opposition's caricatures of
one's candidacy. But Republicans too often worry more about placating
those who oppose them than delivering for their supporters. Pat Buchanan's
Reform Party candidacy, among others, offers conservatives a real alternative
to Bush and the GOP, which many of us will be sorely tempted to support
in any event. Bush must heed Reagan's example of communicating conservative
principles in ways that appeal to broader audiences, rather than abandoning
them wholesale.

Bush has a long way to go. But if he defines himself and the terms of
the debate, rather than allowing himself to be an unprincipled establishment
Republican who is always on the defensive, this is still a very winnable
presidential race.

W. James Antle III has worked for the Rhema Group, an Ohio-based political
consulting firm. You can e-mail him at Jimantle@aol.com